Letters Patent Appeal No. 1347 of 2011 · Patna High Court · 2011
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No. 1347 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1489 of 2002 ====================================================== 1. Subhash Dubey, S/O Late Pujan Dubey, resident of Village-Barhiyan, P.O. & P.S. Barauni, District- Gopalganj. 2. Sampat Pandit, S/O Khuban Pandit, resident of Vilalge- Jalpurba, P.O. Moghal, Biraicha, P.S. Barauli, District- Gopalganj. 3. Shailendra Prasad, S/O Tripurari Prasad, resident of Village- Golamath, P.O. Bhagwanpur, P.S. Thabe, District- Gopalganj. 4. Md. Habib, S/O Late Md. Tarif, resident of Village- Citauli, P.O. Parsurampur, P.S. Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna. 3. Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Registrar-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 5. District Sub Registrar, Gopalganj. .... .... Respondents-Respondents ====================================================== With Letters Patent Appeal No. 1395 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1774 of 2002 ====================================================== 1. Kanhaiya Prasad, S/o Kamla Prasad, resident of Village- Mahiacha, P.S- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj 2. Sambhunath Prasad, S/o Chandra Bhushan Prasad, resident of Village- Sarwe Khas, P.S- Uchakagaon, District- Gopalganj 3. Baristar Sah, S/o Rasul Sah, resident of Village- Kaparpura, P.S- Uchkagaon, District- Gopalganj 4. Madan Prasad, S/o Sugamber Prasad, resident of Village- Maksudpur, P.S- Uchakagaon, District- Gapalganj
Legal Reasoning
5. Krishna Kumar Srivastava, S/o Sheo Shankar Prasad, resident of Village- Kanha Gopi, P.S- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj Patna High Court LPA No.1347 of 2011 (8) dt.22-08-2013 2/7 6. Dhananjay Prasad, S/o Brij Bihari Prasad, resident of Village- Piprakhas, P.S- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj 7. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, S/o Madan Prasad, resident of Village- Baleshra, P.S- Uchkagaon, District- Gopalganj 8. Bhawan Prasad, S/o Gaya Prasad, Village- Vishunpura, P.S- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna. 3. Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Registrar-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj 5. District Sub Registrar, Gopalganj 6. Bacha Prasad, son of Surya Prasad, Village – Madhopur, P.S. – Mirganj, .... .... Respondents/Respondents Dist. – Gopalganj 7. Akhilesh Kr. Singh, son of Babbar Singh, Village – Parrauna, P.S. Bhore, Dist. Gopalganj ………………………. Petitioners – Proforma respondents. (Names of the above Proforma respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been deleted vide Court’s order dated 27th September 2011) ====================================================== With Letters Patent Appeal No. 1448 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1685 of 2002 With Interlocutory Application No. 8407 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1448 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Shashikant Singh, Son of Sri Rameshwar Singh Resident of Village- Chainpatti, P.O., P.S & District- Gopalganj 2. Om Prakash, Son of Baban Prasad, Resident of Village, P.O. & P.S. Yadavpur, District- Gopalganj 3. Suresh Singh, Son of Ramashray Singh, Resident of Village- Chainpatti, P.O., P.S. and District - Gopalganj 4. Srikant Singh, Son of Ramashankar Singh, Resident of Village- Patna High Court LPA No.1347 of 2011 (8) dt.22-08-2013 3/7 Chainpatti, P.O. , P.S. & District- Gopalganj 5. Bijay Kumar Singh, Son of Gopal Singh, Village - Chainpatti, P.O., P.S. & District- Gopalganj .... .... Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna 3. Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. District Registrar-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj 5. District Sub Registrar, Gopalganj .... ....Respondents- Respondents ====================================================== With Letters Patent Appeal No. 1459 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1689 of 2002 With Interlocutory Application No. 8408 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1459 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Janardan Prasad, S/O Late Harishankar Prasad, R/O Village- Harpur, Wazid, P.S.- Thawe, District- Gopalganj 2. Sri Anil Prasad, S/O Late Shivnandan Prasad, R/O Village- Lahladpur, P.O.- Udant Rai Ke Bangra, P.S.- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj 3. Sri Ratikant Prasad, S/O Late Nageshwar Prasad, R/O Village- Rupanchhap, Simaria, P.O. & P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj .... .... Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna 3. Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. District Registrar-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj 5. District Sub Registrar, Gopalganj ====================================================== .... .... Respondents/Respondents Patna High Court LPA No.1347 of 2011 (8) dt.22-08-2013 4/7 Appearance: (In LPA Nos. 1347/2011, 1395/2011, 1448/2011 & 1459/2011) For the Appellants : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pramod Kumar, Mr. Ritesh Kumar & Mr. Bimal Kumar Datta, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to SC 16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 8 22-08-2013 These four Appeals preferred by the concerned writ petitioners under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arise from the common judgment and order dated 1st December 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC Nos. 1489/2002, 1685/2002, 1689/2002, 1774/2002 & 1833/2002 insofar as CWJC Nos. 1489/2002, 1774/2002, 1685/2002 & 1689/2002 have been dismissed by the learned single Judge. The appellants are the deed writers. They claim to be in the profession since 1986-1987. They approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the action of the Registrar of Stamps in not accepting the documents drawn by the appellants on the premise that the appellants are not licensed deed writers under the Bihar Deed Writers Licensing Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) framed by the Inspector General of Registration in exercise of power conferred by Clause (bb) of sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908. Rule (3) of the Rules provides for “Qualifications” for a deed writer. Clause (c) thereof reads as under: “(c) he has passed Deed writers licensing examination conducted under Rule : Provided that a Patna High Court LPA No.1347 of 2011 (8) dt.22-08-2013 5/7 licence may be granted to any person who has been in the profession of the documents writer for at least ten years prior to the date of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991 came into force, without requiring him to appear in the written test referred to in sub-section (1) if the Registrar of a District or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf is satisfied that he is otherwise fit to take the profession of a document writer.” Thus, for grant of license of a deed writer, a person otherwise eligible has to pass the deed writers licensing examination or he shall be a professional deed writer at least for ten years as on the date of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1991”). Admittedly, the appellants have not passed the deed writers licensing examination. The question, therefore, remains as to whether the appellants were in the profession of deed writing for ten years on the date of the Act of 1991. The authority below has held that the appellants had not completed ten years as deed writers as envisaged by the aforesaid Clause (c) of Rule (3) of the Rules. The challenge to the decision of the authority below before the learned single Judge has failed. Therefore, these Appeals. Learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad has appeared for the appellants. He has relied upon certain documents produced on the record by the appellants allegedly written by some of the appellants to buttress his submission that the appellants were in the profession of deed writing since 1986-1987. We are unable to agree with Mr. Rajendra Prasad. A Patna High Court LPA No.1347 of 2011 (8) dt.22-08-2013 6/7 couple of documents produced herein cannot prove that all the appellants before us were in the profession of deed writing since 1986-1987. Besides, the requirement under the aforesaid Rule is that the person shall be in the profession of deed writing for ten years on the date of the Act of 1991, i.e. they should be in the profession at least since 1981. It is not the claim of the appellants that they were in the profession since 1981. The appellants, therefore, cannot avail of the benefit of professional experience as envisaged by aforesaid Clause (c) of Rule (3) of the Rules. The only way the appellants can claim license as deed writers is to pass the deed writers licensing examination. The appellants having failed to pass the licensing examination and having not completed ten years in deed writing as on the date of the Act of 1991, their claim for license is untenable. The Appeals are dismissed. Interlocutory Application Nos. 8407 of 2011 & 8408 of
Decision
2011 are disposed of. We are informed at the Bar that the last such examination was conducted in 2001. Thereafter, no examination has been held for past twelve years. We do agree that the Government or, for that matter, the Inspector General of Registration has the power and authority to control the inflow of deed writers by providing certain checks, such as, the deed writers licensing examination; but if the State Government wants to control the inflow in the profession, it should also hold the examination periodically so that new and younger faces can enter the profession. If the State Government or the Inspector General of Registration fails to conduct such examination periodically, a few deed writers who were licensed initially will monopolize the art of Patna High Court LPA No.1347 of 2011 (8) dt.22-08-2013 7/7 deed writing resulting into an unhealthy competition. Rule (5) of the Rules provides for “Examination”. “The licensing authority”, i.e. the Registrar of a District or any other officer authorized in that behalf is empowered to hold the examination and to set the question papers and to decide the time and place for holding such examination. In other words, the deed writers licensing examination is required to be held at local level by the District Registrar. We are sorry to note that the District Registrars have failed to perform their duty to hold the licensing examination periodically. We end with a caution to the State Government and the Inspector General of Registration. We are of the opinion that the State Government or at least the Inspector General of Registration should ensure that the licensing examination is conducted by every District Registrar periodically so as to allow new faces to enter the profession. Necessary guidelines and instructions therefor may be framed and issued within two months from today. The Registry will send copy of this order to the respondent no. 1 and 2, the State Government and the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna forthwith. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) Dilip. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)